MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have three personnel
announcements. The President intends to nominate Vincent
Martin Battle to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the
Republic of Lebanon. The President intends to nominate Congressman Asa
Hutchinson to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency at the
Department of Justice. And the President intends to nominate Brian
Carlton Roseboro to be Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Financial
Markets. With that, I'll be happy to take questions.

Q On
the nominations today, has the President decided to hold back on
nominating among two others, Congressman Chris Cox, in an attempt to
mollify Democrats because of objections they have?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President today will nominate 11 people to
the circuit court, people he believes are going to make superb jurists,
people he chose because of their quality, their character, and because
they will not legislate from the bench. The President will
have additional announcements to make, of course, throughout the
remaining weeks and months, throughout the remainder of his term, to
fill other vacancies that exist in the courts. I can only
discuss the people he has named. You'll have to stay tuned
for any possible additional announcements.

Q But
are you denying then that this original list included three additional
names that were taken off in the late-going?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There's only one list, and that list is the list
of the people the President is announcing today.

Q So
you think you can get away with not discussing at all who's notable in
their absence?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is going to be making additional
nominations throughout the weeks and months, and today he's naming
these 11.

Q Are
you saying politics had absolutely nothing to do with the names that
the President will unveil today?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's focus today was naming people he
believes are qualified to the bench, and doing so in a manner that is
collegial and cooperative. There are people that we are
discussing with different senators, Democrat senators, as well as
Republican senators, and concerns have been expressed about some
people. The President is going to continue to work with
senators to allay any concerns they may have. Any future
announcements will reflect the decisions that the President makes. He
at all times reserves the right to name the people he thinks are most
suited to serve on the bench to serve our nation.

Q But
you clearly, in this case, clearly wanted a bipartisan list, because
you're obviously trying to affect the climate on Capitol Hill, I
assume.

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President thinks it's very important that the
Congress, in this case the Senate, under its advice and consent clause,
work closely with the White House on the naming of justices and judges
to the courts. And the list that he has picked today is a
reflection of how the President is going to name judges throughout his
tenure. He's going to name leading jurists, people who won't
legislate from the bench, people who are eminently qualified, and
people with whom he has consulted with Democrats and Republicans alike,
home state senators and others in the selection process.

Q When
you say "won't legislate from the bench," how was that
determined? What question was asked of the nominees to
determine whether or not they were the kind of people who would not
legislate from the bench?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Jim, it's a matter of judicial temperament. You
can look at the rulings justices have made; you can review their
histories to see if they share the President's belief that the purpose
of the judiciary is not to rewrite the laws that the elected body, the
Congress, passes and that the President signs, but it is to be an
impartial administrator of justice and not an activist who will
legislate from the bench.

Q I
think you have four people here who have not been on the bench
previously, who were, in fact, activists. So how would
people judge whether or not they would likely be activists --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the President's analysis, in reviewing
their qualifications and in concurrence with the White House Counsel,
that these people reflect the President's belief that it's important
not to legislate from the bench.

Q Obviously,
they were asked something along those lines.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes -- I couldn't tell you every question put to
each and every one of these 11. That's something you may
want to check with the White House Counsel on for specifics on any of
the four that you mentioned, for instance.

Q Ari,
you were going to check on what role the President
played. Did he talk to any of these nominees? How
did he review their nominations?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As with all personnel announcements that the
President makes, the President meets on a two, three times a week basis
with the people who are responsible for the searches of these
people. In the case of the announcements today, he knows
several of these people personally, already knew them, did not need
additional meetings. There are some people he will announce
today he has not met before, but he has reviewed their qualifications
and discussed their background, their qualifications at length with the
Office of White House Counsel.

Q On
the DEA nomination, what's the President's thinking on
that? What's he looking for in Congressman Hutchinson?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President wants to have somebody at the DEA,
as well as also in the Office of the Drug Czar, across the United
States government who is committed to fighting the war on drugs and who
recognizes the need to address the issue from a variety of fronts --
that includes a focus on supply and a focus on demand.

Q Ari,
a follow-up on that, please. The President does see a
definite war on drugs? There's something of a debate on
that, using that phrase.

Q No,
the President is committed to fighting the war on drugs. The President
thinks it's very important to address the terrible problem this country
has of drug abuse. There are 5 million hardcore drug abusers
in America today. Ten percent of people who use drugs
represent 80 percent of all drug use in America. And it's a
hardcore addiction that the President wants to tackle.

Of those 5
million, some 2 million are already in treatment. There are 3 million
people who do not have treatment. And the President
recognizes the problem of one of both supply and demand. The
problem is drugs grown in other nations, drugs grown in America that
enter the streets, enter the marketplace of America, if you will,
because there is a ready and willing population that buys the drugs,
and that's a treatment problem.

So the
President recognizes to fight the war on drugs you have to fight it
from multiple fronts, and the people he has selected to do so, whether
it's the drug czar or the head of the DEA, are committed to do that.

Q So
what would constitute victory in a war on drugs?

MR.
FLEISCHER: A reduction in the number of Americans who abuse
drugs, and an increase in the number of Americans who are successfully
treated so they no longer use drugs. It's a question also of
the White House sending the right message from the bully pulpit of the
White House and grants to local communities that do good work to fight
drugs. Faith-based programs make a marked difference in people's lives
in getting people to kick a very hard habit to kick. That's
how the President is going to approach this. It's
multifaceted.

Q One
more. There are some critics who view Mr. Hutchinson and Mr.
Walters as extremists who would favor a lock them up policy rather than
a treat them policy. Will law and order take precedence over
treatment?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President differs with that
analysis. The President thinks it's important to do both,
and he believes the people he is appointing -- Asa Hutchinson in the
case today
-- do represent a willingness to fight this battle on both
fronts. But there is also -- law and order is an important
factor, too, and it always will be.

Q Ari,
Republicans are considering withholding U.N. dues until the United
States goes on to the Human Rights Commission at the U.N. Do
you think that's a good approach?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I have something for you on that. Let
me get some specific language on that. Let me come back to
that in a minute. I'm going to give you something specific
on that.

Q Ari,
Newt Gingrich was here today. Did he meet with the
President?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not as far as I know, no. It wasn't on
the President's schedule and I haven't seen him in the Oval Office.

Q Do
you know what he was doing, by any chance?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No. People come to the West Wing all
the time for meetings with staff.

Q Secretary
Rumsfeld was here, too, though. Was he meeting with the
President, and can you tell us why he might be here?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I know the Secretary will be meeting with the
President, and that's part of the Secretary's regular conversations
that he has with the President about military plans, military
operations, the assignment the President gave the Secretary to review
the future of the military and to come up with recommendations sometime
this summer.

Q Ari,
yesterday the Vice President indicated that the administration will
propose legislation to enhance the federal government's eminent domain
authority to take private property in order to site and construct
electric power lines. Why does the President think that's a
good idea?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to prejudge what the energy report
will show when it's released next week, but given the criticality of
having an energy policy that can help bring prices down, that can help
make sure that people's supplies are secure so when they flip on their
switch, the lights work. The President does want to make
certain that our aging infrastructure is modernized. And
part of that is to take a look at the transmission of electricity to
make certain that it does flow across the country, so that if one
region has a problem with energy, they can get energy from a different
region of the country.

Under the
current setup, that's hard to do at times. That's one of the
reasons that California is going through the difficulties it's going
through. There is energy available in other parts of the
country, but it can't be shipped to California as easily as you would
hope, because of infrastructure problems.

Q Why
would the power companies need the federal government to step in and
exercise eminent domain? Why can't they just pay fair market
value?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There are differences in the law on the federal
law that apply to such things as natural gas pipelines, for example,
where the federal government is able to help communities and help
states in the approval process to get pipelines built, to serve the
infrastructure needs. Those same rules that apply for natural gas
pipelines do not apply to electric pipelines. It's not
exactly consistent to have an approach like that; nevertheless, that is
the way the law is currently constituted.

Q And
one last one on this. A lot of local officials -- local
regulatory officials and local political officials -- are afraid that
this would be the heavy hand of the federal government putting power
lines in their communities without sufficient
consultations. This is an administration that has said power
should be shifted back to localities. What happened?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, without prejudging what the report is
going to show, this President is determined to make certain that local
voices are heard in all such matters. He's very respectful
of the need to work with people locally, before the federal government
steps in. And he believes that we can do that, as we have
done -- as the United States government has done in the case of natural
gas pipelines.

But,
clearly, there is a national need to make certain the energy that is
produced in one region of the country is able to be received in a
different region of the country, so that people can fire up their
heaters, can turn on their air-conditioners, can turn on their
lights. It does seem a little inconsistent, under current
law, that the law allows for a federal role in natural gas pipelines,
but no such role exists in electricity transmission. The
energy problem is a problem of infrastructure, in addition to supply,
in addition to conservation.

Q How
does the President feel about space-based offensive weapons?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has asked the Department of Defense
to take a look at its defense needs. And Secretary Rumsfeld
is reviewing the overall military strategy to help preserve the
peace. And this week, as you know, the Secretary made a
personnel management decision to create a four-star general to oversee
space programs. And that's the President's view.

Q So
he certainly hasn't ruled it out?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Secretary is reviewing these matters, per the
President's direction.

Q Ari,
going back to the U.N, not only one, but now the U.S. lost two seats
in the U.N., human rights and also an anti-drug. How is the
administration's relations with the United Nations and what is the
future when we're talking about everything -- globalization and
fighting terrorism and human rights? And China is
celebrating.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, without going through everything that we
went through yesterday on the same topic, the President is committed to
working with the United Nations. He thinks that is
important. There are two entities within the United Nations
that exercise their judgment in a fashion that the President thinks is
unwise and not helpful to people who deserve a U.N. that speaks out
strongly on behalf of the cause of human rights, and also a U.N. that
is able to fight the war on drugs.

In terms of
the question you asked earlier about payment on this, while the United
States is disappointed with the results of the Human Rights Commission
election, the President feels strongly that this issue should not be
linked to the payment of our arrears to the U.N. and other
international organizations.

Q Why
does he feel that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Because there was a negotiated agreement that was
agreed to by the Senate, by the House, by others, dealing with the
whole question of arrears and payment to the United Nations that is
separate and apart from this current matter.

Q Well,
just to follow, should there be some consequence for this, or are we
just going to wait until the next vote next year?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think Secretary Powell addressed that in his
remarks yesterday, which we've all read this morning, about the best
way to deal with this matter.

Q Back
on the judicial nominations for a moment. In the case of
District Court nominations from California, has the President agreed to
form a joint commission to get that state's senators to screen
potential nominees for district court --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The process will be very much like it was -- or
the process will be very much like it is today. The
President will nominate to the United States Senate the people that he,
in his judgment, believes are the best people to serve on the circuit
courts or on the district courts for this
country. And he will do so in a manner that is
cooperative, that is collegial. He will work closely with
the Senate.

And one of
the things that the President will stress throughout this process is
that for too long in Washington, there has been too much fighting
between the two parties over judicial nominees. And as a
result of that, there have been too many vacancies created in the
courts. The fighting has not helped the country; the
fighting has hurt the courts. And the President believes
it's time for Democrats and Republicans alike to put the country first,
to put the courts first, and to put the fighting aside.

Q If
I could follow up, there was a report in one newspaper today that said
in the case of district court vacancies from California, that the
President has agree to form a joint commission with that state's
senators --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know what a joint commission
means. I know that --

Q A
commission to screen them, three members appointed by the White House,
three members appointed by the senators.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know anything about that. I
can tell you that the President's approach is going to be exactly as it
is today, that he going to --

Q Ari,
on judicial nominees --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Are you trying to finish my thought for me?
(Laughter.) The President is going to continue to call and
work with Democrat senators from those states. There are
several states that have two Democrat senators, and the President has
directed Judge Gonzalez here within the White House to work closely
with the senators from those states.

We have an
urgent question from the back.

Q On
the question of the nominations in California and Maryland, and the
liberal Democratic senators in those states, is there the perception
here that the President is going to have a problem, that these judicial
nominations may be held up not merely on the basis of qualifications --
I don't think anyone is going to try to question, for example, the
qualifications of the Christopher Cox -- but that these are going to be
nominations that are contested on the basis of ideology alone?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President hopes that the bipartisan
traditions of the United States Senate will be
maintained. The President will view it as unfortunate if
people tried to block nominees simply because somebody from the other
party is in the White House. That would not be healthy and
that would not be good for the courts. The Presidents have
earned and deserved latitude in their choice of making appointments to
the court. The Senate has an important advice and consent
role to play, which the President will be very respectful of.

Q If
the two Democratic senators in these states continue to basically wave
blue slips and say, we don't want these nominees, will the President
fail to nominate them?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to deal with hypothetical
situations. Judge Gonzalez is continuing to have his
conversations and the White House hopes that they'll be productive.

Q A
follow-up on that. Over the past 15 years that this fight
has been developing, there is a new school of thought on the Senate's
advise and consent role. Is it fair for senators, in
exercising their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent,
to take ideology into consideration, just as the President did, as a
co-equal member -- branch of the government? Is it fair for
senators to say, I don't agree with the way the President looks at the
role of judges, therefore, I'm going to vote against this nominee on
ideology?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Senators, of course, are always free to vote yes
or no as they see fit. What the President hopes will happen
is that the Senate will allow the process to move
forward. That way, the nation can be served and the courts
can be filled where there are vacancies.

There are
currently several vacancies that are creating emergencies in the
courts. In the circuit courts, 17 percent of all seats are
vacant. That means that at the circuit court level, almost
one out of five courthouses does not have a judge sitting in a
chair. And that means justice is being slowed down, courts
are being filled with gridlock, courts are being delayed. And that's a
real problem for anybody who has to receive justice in a court of
law. And that's the problem, when action is not
taken. That's why the President will always be respectful of
the right of a senator to vote yes or vote no as they see
fit. What's important is that senators are able to have a
fair hearing, or judges are allowed by the Senate to have a fair
hearing, and that there are -- votes are scheduled and that the country
can be served.

Q A
follow-up on that. These are the same kind of arguments that
the Clinton administration made for years about the holdup of their own
judicial appointments. And they apparently were not at all
persuasive to Republicans in the Senate. Why do you think
that these arguments should now work?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Jean, I think that's a very good
question. And the problem with it, though, is that those are
also the same arguments that Republicans can make against the Democrats
when there was a previous Republican President. One of the
nominees the President is submitting today was nominated in 1991 by
former President Bush. And the Democrats in the Senate at
that time did not schedule any hearings. Did that make it
right, then, for the Republicans who followed to say to President
Clinton we're not going to schedule hearings on yours? The
problem is, when both parties engage in that type of partisan rancor,
the only people that lose are people who need to go to the courts to
receive justice. And --

Q But
do you think this is going to be persuasive?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is going to use all his powers to
make it persuasive. And that's why he's worked as closely as
he has with the Democrat senators from these states. That's
why he's seeking to change the tone in Washington. And
that's also why I remind you that President Bush was the governor of
Texas during this time and that is not the manner in which he governed
and he worked with Democrats in the state of Texas.

The
President believes there is too much partisanship in
Washington. It's evidenced in the way both parties have
engaged with each other in the conduct of Senate judicial
nominations. And the only thing that will happen if that
same partisan pattern continues, is that justice will be delayed, and
justice for some people will be hurt or denied.

Q What
specifically would you point to, to convince Democrats that, somehow,
as you say and as the President will say, that he's different from all
who have come before him in this arena, and that he's going to change
the tone and eradicate all the partisan bickering? What is
the --

MR.
FLEISCHER: David, I don't want to go too far in saying he's
different from all that came before him. I think there have
been many people who have been in the White House who have good
intentions and tried to work hard.

President
Bush is going to do his level best to help change that
tone. And one example is, this afternoon, when the President
makes his announcements, you will learn that the President is going to
renominate Roger Gregory. Roger Gregory was previously
nominated by President Clinton and he was not accepted by the United
States Senate.

When
President Bush announces today the name of Roger Gregory, that will be
an unprecedented act for a President to renominate a judicial choice to
the circuit court whose original nomination was made by a President of
the other party. It has never happened before in the history
of our country. And President Bush is doing that because he
believes that Roger Gregory is qualified, and he also believes it's
important to work well with the other party. And the
President hopes that the other party will show a willingness to work
well with him.

Q So
that's an olive branch. It's not just about qualifications,
there are some politics here. It's a sign to the Democrats
that, hey, I'm going to give a little here, too -- that's what you're
saying?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As I said in response to the first question, the
President thinks it's important in all matters, including the selection
of judicial candidates, to work cooperatively and collegially with
Senate Democrats and Republicans. And it's that very
approach, it's that signal that he's sending that by working together
to put the needs of the judiciary first and the needs of partisan
politics last, we can advance the cause of people who need justice in
this country.

Q So
you're conceding that in this specific area, that's what he's doing
here? It's not just a matter of qualifications, but politics
and to reach out?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I can only describe the fact that this is
unprecedented for a President to nominate somebody to the circuit court
who a previous President had nominated and that nomination was not
accepted. I'll leave interpretations up to other
people. But that is the fact of what's happened.

Q You're
not steering us away from that interpretation.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would never steer you, Mr. Gregory.

Q Do
you have assurances from Republicans who originally opposed the Gregory
nomination that there will be no problem this time?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, the two senators from Virginia,
where Mr. Gregory is going to be nominated from, have indicated that
they support this nominee. And those two senators are
Republican senators.

Q Ari,
Mr. Gregory is the first African American to serve in the 4th Circuit
Court, which has a very large African American population. Is that
part of the reason that President Bush chose to renominate him?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, he chose to renominate him because he
believes that he is qualified, that he won't legislate from the bench,
and that's why he has chosen him.

Q More
generally, does the President believe that his nominees should reflect
the ethnic and racial diversity of the country, or does he just operate
strictly on a qualification --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President operates on the basis of
qualifications. And the President believes that in the
course of those qualifications, it is healthy to have in all his
appointments a group of people who are broadly representative of the
country. But the first criteria is and always be
qualifications.

Q Ari,
since Sunday is Mother's Day and the President has a widely-admired
mother, he will be observing Mother's Day, won't he, rather than what
The New York Post and The Washington Times reported this morning about
Mother's Day observance being banned by a private school in New York
City, which claims that Mother's Day is unfair to same-sex
parents? He will observe Mother's Day without that concern,
won't he, Ari?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes.

Q Good. (Laughter.) The
New York Times, Washington Times and Washington Post all report this
morning that the American Psychiatric Association Convention in New
Orleans today, Columbia University psychiatric professor, Robert
Spencer, who led the APA's decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality
from its list of mental disorders, will present a report that
homosexuals are able to alter their orientation to heterosexuality,
especially with religious help. Does the President agree or
disagree with Dr. Spencer?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not a topic I've discussed with the
President.

Q Would
you take it to him and ask him about it?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President does not view sexual orientation as
a matter that he reviews when it comes to hiring decisions inside this
White House.

Q I
understand. But does he deny that it's possible for a
homosexual to become a heterosexual?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know that's a topic that the President is
focused on.

Q Ari,
on energy, does the administration view itself to be in a dispute with
Governor Gray Davis?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No.

Q Governor
Davis' spokesman has said that the administration is not doing enough
to assist California. Is there a dispute on that question?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think perhaps the Governor's spokesman must not
be aware of the letter that the Governor sent to the President, in
which Governor Davis thanked President Bush for all the steps he's
taken that responded to Governor Davis' request to help California.

This
administration stands ready and able to help California in all ways
possible. And that is why the President has announced a
series of steps, including conservation, where the Department of
Defense is now going to cut back by 10 percent its energy needs within
the state of California, all the federal agencies are reviewing the
role that they can use conservation to help California and other states
this summer get through an energy crisis. The President has
expedited permitting to help California. The President ordered the
for-sales marketing of natural gas and electricity into California
during the months of January and February. So the
President's going to continue to be helpful to California in all ways
that are possible.

Q Ari,
you talked about fighting over judges. We have a pretty
fundamental difference here over the role of judges and what courts
should do in society. Isn't that worth arguing about?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President respects the right of people
to differ with him. The question is, will differences
manifest themselves in a way that means the Senate won't vote, that
there will be no action, that people who were duly nominated do not
receive their day in court, so to speak. So the President
will be very respectful of people's rights to differ. The
question is, will the nominees have their cases heard, and will votes
be cast. The President believes the answer should be yes,
and he believes the answer will be yes.

Q If
we have a bunch of 51-50 votes for a judge, is that a good thing?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to deal with hypotheticals.
We'll see what the votes are.

Q On
Iraq, has the President received a recommendation from his national
security team about scaling back U.S. flights over the no-fly
zone? I believe The Washington Post reporting today that
some commanders in the field say that the flights should be scaled back
because of danger

and a chance of a pilot being shot down.

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has directed a review to take a
look broadly at the United States policy, vis-a-vis
Iraq. That review is underway. And we are always,
as a government, looking for ways to make the no-fly zones more
effective. The no-fly zones are a critical part of our
efforts to defend against threats that are posed by the Iraqi regime,
were they to have unencumbered access to the airspace. It
could risk threatening their neighbors and American
allies. So the United States has made clear to Iraq that any
attempt to threaten our forces patrolling in the no-fly zones will be a
cause for us to respond militarily, and that policy remains in effect.

Q And
just a follow-up, because the review has been underway for a while now,
since you started the administration. Is there any new,
newer approach here or any --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Nothing new, the policy is in effect.

Q On
the budget, is the President making any calls today or talking to any
members of Congress?

MR.
FLEISCHER: On the budget? The House of
Representatives just passed the budget resolution.

Q Did
he make any calls today?

MR.
FLEISCHER: To influence the vote, and to talk to members
about the vote? No, I think that the President knew that the
vote was going to pass. He is in frequent contact with
members of Congress. He often picks up the phone and calls
members and discusses things with them of a broad nature -- not just
the vote today, but on a series of pending items, he'll talk to members
of Congress.

Q Yes,
but I just wanted to make sure this morning, or something, he didn't
have any involvement or wasn't involved in any lobbying or anything
like that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, the prospects for the vote
looked good.

Russell,
I'm still working on your question. I think I'll have
something for you later today.

Q If
I could just stay on the budget. Grassley indicated
yesterday, the Finance Chairman, that the President is not going to get
his top marginal rate tax cut down to 33 percent, 39 percent
bracket. Are you still holding out any hope for that, or is
there an area where you're looking to compromise?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President understands the 50-50
Senate. And the President believes that the top rate should be lowered
to as close as to the level that he proposed in his plan, which is 33
percent. I remind you that it was just 10 years ago where
the top rate in the United States was 28 percent.

So no
matter what level they lower it to, even if it's all the way to the
level the President said, it is still significantly above the top rate
where it was just a few short years ago. And during those
intervening 10 years, a whole series of tax hikes went into effect, a
series of provisions that raised taxes even more beyond the rates were
put into effect. People lost their right to itemize their
deductions; they lost a lot of their phase-ins. And the
President does believe that we should not punish people because they
are successful in America, and that no one should pay a rate of higher
than 33 percent.